I am not sure any collection of people can be said to have all the same beliefs, but my understanding of the Democratic Party is that it favours providing a social safety net, reducing wealth and power inequality, protecting the environment and advancing civil rights. Honestly I think that 'line' compares favourable to the me-first let-them-eat-cake (and be compelled to say grace first) values of the GOP, but that's just me.

This will require some constitutional work as no state is supposed to house the seat of the federal government.
I understand they want voting rights, but this can be done without rewriting the constitution.

Well we do have an approach, and a plan... lol not going to tell you ahead of time.

in seriousness: We're the opposition party so of course we oppose hell out of what the GOP majority is doing, which bears plenty of opposition and deserves even more. Even though on the surface it may not seem to have done a lot, we don't like a lot of what's been set in motion past what's been checked off as done (which in some cases has promptly met lawsuits and stays).

For now I could not do better for sake of concision than quote the end of the linked piece you cited.

The point is that we've been here before. Do Democrats need to figure out who they are and what they stand for? Many in the party would say yes. And from a good-government standpoint, it's nice to tell people where you stand and what your priorities are. But Democrats probably don't need to be anything more than the anti-Trump party right now — not really. The 2018 election will largely be a referendum on Trump, and right now Americans say they prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by between 5 and 10 points.

I would say in modern-day, the dems stand for socialism to some degree. They don't want to call it that for several reasons. But socialism to me is not a bad word, we already live in a fairly socialistic society, Republicans were at one point probably as big on certain aspects of socialism as Democrats. When everyone and all corporations are taxed fairly, when everyone profits from the country's success, when infrastructure works, when Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment benefits are paid out (and paid for via everyone paying taxes)... that is capitalism and some forms of socialism working correctly.

I would say in modern-day, the dems stand for socialism to some degree. They don't want to call it that for several reasons. But socialism to me is not a bad word, we already live in a fairly socialistic society, Republicans were at one point probably as big on certain aspects of socialism as Democrats. When everyone and all corporations are taxed fairly, when everyone profits from the country's success, when infrastructure works, when Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment benefits are paid out (and paid for via everyone paying taxes)... that is capitalism and some forms of socialism working correctly.

Click to expand...

I don't really think it fair to say that Democrats stand for socialism to some degree without saying the same thing about Republicans. The "to some degree" is a heck of a qualifier. The military is socialism at work. So is infrastructure programs, police and fire departments, education, prisons, etc. Heck even healthcare pre-ACA. Is there a real difference between an HMO and a government run system? Both are just giant bureaucracies.

The real difference between the two sides is where to target the funds.

I don't really think it fair to say that Democrats stand for socialism to some degree without saying the same thing about Republicans. The "to some degree" is a heck of a qualifier. The military is socialism at work. So is infrastructure programs, police and fire departments, education, prisons, etc. Heck even healthcare pre-ACA. Is there a real difference between an HMO and a government run system? Both are just giant bureaucracies.

The real difference between the two sides is where to target the funds.

Click to expand...

I agree, but for some reason, the word "socialism" has a really negative connotation with the right, whereas the left seems afraid to call it that, which is odd given that out of everyone who ran for president last year, Bernie by far got the most enthusiastic reaction. I think democrats use it more for their for platform, but could be more successful if they would embrace the word and talk about what you just mentioned - how the right also loves certain forms of socialism. Bill Maher has said the democrats need to speak louder and fight back harder, and this would be a good starting point.

I agree, but for some reason, the word "socialism" has a really negative connotation with the right, whereas the left seems afraid to call it that, which is odd given that out of everyone who ran for president last year, Bernie by far got the most enthusiastic reaction. I think democrats use it more for their for platform, but could be more successful if they would embrace the word and talk about what you just mentioned - how the right also loves certain forms of socialism. Bill Maher has said the democrats need to speak louder and fight back harder, and this would be a good starting point.

Click to expand...

I think that the word socialism is a non-starter with certain parts of the country simply because of its association with communism. Understanding nuance isn't a big part of our political discourse.

I agree, but for some reason, the word "socialism" has a really negative connotation with the right, whereas the left seems afraid to call it that, which is odd given that out of everyone who ran for president last year, Bernie by far got the most enthusiastic reaction. I think democrats use it more for their for platform, but could be more successful if they would embrace the word and talk about what you just mentioned - how the right also loves certain forms of socialism. Bill Maher has said the democrats need to speak louder and fight back harder, and this would be a good starting point.

Click to expand...

I don't think arguing for socialism alone is a good way forward. Sure, public schools, public roads, police, fire departments, military, etc. are all essentially social programs. But that is essentially saying any tax-funded program or any government venture is socialism. That isn't correct though because socialism is far bigger than just taxing and spending. Collecting taxes and spending them for the welfare of society isn't socialism - that's just the role of any good government.

I think a better way of looking at it to argue that rights social. The right to an education, the right to healthcare, the right to live peacefully, the right to a livable wage, the right to organized labor, etc. These things are where socialist ideas have been and can be inserted.

I don't think arguing for socialism alone is a good way forward. Sure, public schools, public roads, police, fire departments, military, etc. are all essentially social programs. But that is essentially saying any tax-funded program or any government venture is socialism. That isn't correct though because socialism is far bigger than just taxing and spending. Collecting taxes and spending them for the welfare of society isn't socialism - that's just the role of any good government.

I think a better way of looking at it to argue that rights social. The right to an education, the right to healthcare, the right to live peacefully, the right to a livable wage, the right to organized labor, etc. These things are where socialist ideas have been and can be inserted.

Everywhere else, socialism has no place in the US.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think as we see more and more wealth flowing into the hands of fewer and fewer people, despite the country and economy doing well on paper... capitalism is a word that is taking on more of a negative connotation. The idea is sound in theory, but the way its being implemented is really pinching the middle class. Single-Payer healthcare is a big thing with democrats, and that is definitely one of the biggest forms of modern-day socialism there is, and something a lot of people on the left feel is needed. I don't think you can push for that while not using the word, although I guess calling it a "right" is not a bad sell either. Either way, you might not have to use the word as your agenda, but I think it absolutely could be part of it.

Maybe, but I think as we see more and more wealth flowing into the hands of fewer and fewer people, despite the country and economy doing well on paper... capitalism is a word that is taking on more of a negative connotation. The idea is sound in theory, but the way its being implemented is really pinching the middle class. Single-Payer healthcare is a big thing with democrats, and that is definitely one of the biggest forms of modern-day socialism there is, and something a lot of people on the left feel is needed. I don't think you can push for that while not using the word, although I guess calling it a "right" is not a bad sell either. Either way, you might not have to use the word as your agenda, but I think it absolutely could be part of it.

Click to expand...

Yea, I agree. The way I see it's fine for capitalism to rule everything except where it isn't appropriate. Sometimes we refer to those "inappropriate for capitalism" situations as rights - though a bit different than the bill of rights. For example, you can buy and sell speech, no problem. But other things we have said profit-seeking corporations shouldn't be the first and only option available - the people have a right to some things: fire fighting, policing, education, press, postal service, military defense, etc. Some of these also have a profit-seeking corporate alternative in addition to whatever is provided by "the people."

When people talk about single-payer, I think they're saying no more profit motive for healthcare. Healthcare should be a right we all have, and it should be out of the hands of profit-seeking corporations and in the hands of "the people." Yes, this is semi-socialist, but it's not socialism. It's a few exceptions from capitalism.

The Democrats' convention was more Apple Pie American and Flag Wavin' God Fearin' than the Republican one in 2016 as I recall. But apparently we were having a year of Republican Visions of Carnage in America from sea to gold-glitters sea in 2016. So we bought Trump, and put the sunshine and pie and god-fearin' thing on ice for awhile.

But, sigh... we're thinking of returning Trump as damaged goods. Get ready. There's a lot of us in line carrying bits of his empty promises and all too real threats up to the customer service counter aka voting booth in 2018.

By the way, a little Democratic Party secret: It's ok to believe in God and be a scientist at the same time. Ever hear of stuff like the role of Planck's constant in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Just like the old spaghetti sauce commercial ... "it's in there",,,, could be God's everywhere in science, man. Maybe he just don't like braggin' on it.

Give the fruits of a few people's hard labor to illegals and lazy people?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen republicans rushing to do away with the handouts for anyone. In fact they've maintained them and even increased them in many areas, as well as adding more governmental welfare for their friends and business associates.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.